Draft

 Injurious, Unjust Laws and Court Rulings

That Must Be Set Aside, Repealed, Replaced or Amended

(Updated June 3, 2011)

(Readers - please provide constructive comments and additional items to Fisher@WeThePeopleNow.org)

All or parts of each of the below listed laws (statues, rules, regulations, court rulings and case laws) have had injurious unjust effects on human beings, democracy and the environment are unconstitutional, violate constitutional rights. These were obtained by fraud, and/or used to commit fraud and are null and void. This fact is supported by this document’s Attachment A: Laws Regarding Void Statutes, Regulations, Rulings and Orders.

Credit for listing and describing of the below “injurious items” goes to Ms. Libby Hunter, an activist and talented musician and Ms. Ann Fagan Ginger, Executive Director, Emeritus,

Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, www.mcli.org. Ms. Ginger has compiled and edited a Tool Kit for Congress and Activists which contains succinct summaries of at least another 100 laws that must be amended or repealed.

I, Ron Fisher, the compiler of this document, have added a few “injurious acts of government.” Since there is some overlap among the items, and due to time limitations, I have made no effort to distinguish who added which item.

Note: All these lists will be integrated by subject matter and matched to the congressional committees responsible for the particular subject matter.

INJURIOUS ITEMS:

The following injurious items and the others listed in the Attachment A must be set aside, repealed, replaced or amended under the leadership of the applicable congressional committee:

A. Congressional Rules and Laws

1. The Senate Filibuster Rule (Rule XXII) “gives a minority of 41 Senators . ... . the power to prevent the Senate from debating or voting on a bill or resolution, or a Presidential appointment. A “filibuster” is the use of unlimited debate not to inform or persuade, but to obstruct the proceedings of a legislative body ”. Emmet J. Bondurant, in his article THE SENATE FILIBUSTER RULE (http://bit.ly/9aswoa), clearly shows that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional. Also, the filibuster rule has been used to commit fraud on numerous occasions. The Senate Filibuster Rule (Rule XXII) is null and void.

2. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Public Law 79-404) (1946) This is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law. It enabled bureaucrats, instead of legislators, to write law.

B. War and Other Government Powers The Constitution is explicit in allowing only Congress the power to declare war.

3. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub. L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (AUMF) Resolution of 2002 and Legislation appropriating funds for the War on Terror are unconstitutional, null and void as outlined in Proof of the Unconstitutionality and Illegality of U. S. Wars/Occupations and Use of Force in the Mideast

4. Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs)

Currently the U.S. has SOFAS with over 100 nations' and approximately 760 bases world-wide, allowing U.S. military to maintain a foreign presence across the globe.

SOFAs are stand-alone agreements between the U.S. and other nations that allow the U.S. to station military forces in those foreign nations. Every SOFA is different, but most of them define the legal status of the U.S. Armed Forces while operating abroad and address which of the laws apply to military forces while they are within that nation.

Some of these SOFAs ... supposedly "preserve the right of U.S. forces to initiate unilateral military actions” and round up individuals in abusive preventive detention facilities where human rights are violated routinely,"

“The nations that house U.S. military bases are threatened by the constant U. S. military presence on their soil and the peoples of the United States are less safe because of them. These bases "stretch our military beyond its capabilities, bringing about fiscal insolvency and very possibly doing mortal damage to our republican institutions," according to Chalmers Johnson.'

These SOFAS are also dangerous to the peoples of the U. S. because they spread our military thin. If the U.S. were to suffer an invasion or attack, it would be more difficult to defend the country from abroad. Also, in Italy, more than 70,000 protestors marched through the city of Vicenzain in 2007 to show their objections to the expansion of a U.S. military base.' The protestors said that they did not want the base there at all because they believe Americans cause trouble and that in case of military conflict, the base, which is at the heart of the city, could become a target.' There have been similar protests in South Korea.'° In the Philippines, as in many other developing countries, the SOFAS sometimes provide that the "host" country supply the logistical support necessary for the U.S. military to maintain their forces in the region, spare parts, transportation, communication, medical services, and many more."

The constant presence of a military base in a foreign nation is essentially a threat against the territorial integrity and political independence of a nation. Having a U.S. military presence in so many countries creates what the CIA calls "blowback," or the unintended consequences of military action. Such a presence could result in future terrorist attacks on the U.S. or U.S. bases on foreign soil.

None of the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) have been submitted to the Senate for ratification and are therefore null and void.

The permanent basing or military presence of U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan; (2) provide, no later than one year after the date on which such agreement is entered into, for the complete redeployment from Afghanistan of the U.S. Armed Forces and Department of Defense (DOD) civilian employees and contractors; and (3) establish that the temporary presence of U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan is at the request of the government of Afghanistan.

Authorizes such agreement to provide for specific activities or missions of the U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

SOFAs violate or ignore:

U.S. Constitution, General Welfare Clause, Art. I, 8, Cl. 2.

U.N. Charter, Art. 2(1), 2(4), Art. 55 & 56.

The Geneva Convention

None of the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) have been submitted to the Senate for ratification.

All of these SOFAs are null and void

C. Economical and Banking Laws

5. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which established the Federal Reserve System (the Fed), wrongfully and unlawfully gave power to the Fed “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof” and to draw money from the Treasury without the Consequence of appropriations made by law. Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to delegate these powers and most certainly not to a private concern. The Fed is a private corporation. The Federal Reserve Act is clearly unconstitutional.

The Federal Reserve, has abjectly failed:

     a. to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates as it is required to do by the Federal Reserve Act

     b. to perform most of its duties which, according to official Federal Reserve documentation on its website include: to conduct the nation's monetary policy, supervise and regulate banking institutions, maintain the stability of the financial system and provide financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions”.

On September 23, 2009, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) released a report card demonstrating the poor record of the Federal Reserve in using the tools provided by Congress to protect consumers from abusive financial industry practices. Chairman Frank cited several examples of the Federal Reserve’s unsatisfactory performance and stated: The Federal Reserve's inattention and inaction on consumer protection is a key reason why Democrats are working to create the Consumer Financial Product Agency in the coming weeks and months. As the above report card shows, consumer protection has long been overlooked by federal regulators, and their motivation to protect consumers has been driven more by congressional pressure rather than a sense of duty to the protect the American public.

Not only has the Fed, not properly regulated banks, former and current Fed executives have been instrumental in getting rid of regulations including the Glass Steagal Act.

Their main job, appears to protect, not regulate large banks. The Feds actions have increased the frequency and severity of boom-bust economic cycles including the Great Depression of the 1930s, the late-2000s recession, and the current great recession.

6. Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (also cited as The Monetary Reform Act) (P. L. No. 96-221; 94 Stat. 132) (1980) Highlights: Allows banks to merge, and institutions to charge any interest rate they choose. Forces all banks to abide by Federal Reserve rules, and raised deposit insurance of banks and credit unions from $40,000 to $100,000.

7. Truth in Lending Act “Reform” (Sept. 30, 1995) Eased regulations on creditors. This bill was powered through by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL), a key recipient of finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) donations ($136,000 in 1993-94).”

8. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) A bank deregulation bill that repealed much of the Glass-Steagall Act by allowing commercial and retail banks to engage in investment activities, speculative trading and mergers opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. It passed the Senate 90-8 and was signed by President Clinton. It led to a wave of mega-mergers “too big to fail.” The driving force was Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) who had received $4.6 million from the FIRE sector over the previous decade. This act is credited as the major contributor to the 2008 financial collapse.

9. Commodity Futures Modernization Act (Dec. 14, 2000). Sen. Gramm attached a 262 page amendment that deregulated derivatives and credit default swaps trading to an omnibus appropriations bill just prior to the Christmas holiday in December of 2000. Gramm's amendment was supported by then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. The amendment was never debated by the House or Senate and by-passed the substantive policy committees in both the House and the Senate so that there were neither hearings nor opportunities for recorded committee votes. This law unleashed the derivatives market, paved the way for banks to become more aggressive about investing in mortgages, and opened the door to an explosion in new, unregulated securities. The amendment also contained a provision lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed.

10. American Home Ownership and Economic Opportunity Act (Dec. 27, 2000). This act makes it harder for consumers to get out of lender-required insurance.

11. Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (April 20, 2005) The act makes it harder for consumers (but not businesses) to discharge debts. The strict means test that would force more debtors to file under Chapter 13 (under which a percentage of debts must be paid over a period of 3-5 years) as opposed to Chapter 7 (under which debts are paid only out of existing assets), the additional penalties and responsibilities the bill placed on debtors, and the bill's many provisions favorable to credit card companies.

12. Suspension of the uptick rule that required that short sale transactions be entered at prices that are higher than the price of the previous trade. This rule prevents short sellers from adding to the downward momentum when the price of an asset is already experiencing sharp declines.

13. De-regulation that allowed reduced margin and position limits for speculators.

14. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001) ("The Bush Tax Cuts")

15. Portions of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act (RAFS) of 2010

D. Court Rulings

16. Corporate Personhood - Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) (1886), The legal theory that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment is based on a clerical error and is null and void. A passing remark by the chief justice was erroneously summarized in the head note by the court recorder. This clerical error set the stage for massive damage of our environmental, governmental, and cultural commons. This damage must be corrected by the corporations and their executives that caused it.

17. Supreme Court Rejects Corporate Spending Limit (2010) (Ruling No. 08-205), in Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court wrongfully and unlawfully ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections and gave corporations massive influence over our elections, politics and government. It failed to distinguish between domestic and foreign owned corporations and knowingly leaves America vulnerable to the latter. It overrules two important precedents about First Amendment rights of corporations; Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 [“McCain-Feingold”] that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions. Corporations are not people, and nothing in the Constitution supports any such interpretation. The First Amendment protects “Free Speech,” not “Paid Speech.” This ruling is null and void.

18. Free Trade Agreements. Replace Free Trade Agreements with Fair Trade Agreements.

E. Civil Rights

19. Espionage Act of 1917

20. The National Security Act (P. L. No. 235, 80 Cong., 61 Stat. 496, 50 U.S.C. ch.15) (1947). This was the granddaddy of all the others. It was the start of the national security state we are now under, and the beginnings of a fascist state.

21. Taft-Hartley Act, The Labor-Management Relations Act (80 P.L. 101; 61 Stat. 136) (1947) Federal law which monitors activities and power of labor unions. Labor leaders have called it the "Slave-Labor" bill. It tilts labor-management balance.

22. Welfare Reform Act (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, H.R. 3734, P.L.104-193) (1996) Sets time limits on entitlements and cash assistance to welfare recipients; requires most recipients to get jobs; changes disability definitions for SSI for children; denies many legal immigrants from collecting SSI and food stamps, and much more. Inherent in the Act: misogyny, racism, and exploitation of women (do whatever job you can get and don't complain - or risk homelessness). Attention should have been directed to conditions of low-wage labor market - living wage, health care, and child care all desperately needed.

23. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA]

24. The Patriot Act

25. Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) which suspended Habeas Corpus.

F. Environment

26. Cap and Trade (Emissions Trading) (1970) An market-based carbon-trading scheme which is an expression of the inability and unwillingness of legislators to address environmental problems which arise from our mode of energy use (in large part carbon emissions). Although Caps are needed. Trading these Caps does nothing for the environment, or people and enriches Wall Street and hurts the economy.

G. Media

27. The repeal under Reagan in 1987 of the Fairness Doctrine (Federal Communications Commission [FCC] policy) (1949). The Fairness Doctrine had required that broadcasters present controversial issues in an honest, balanced manner. In 1988 FCC Commissioner Johnson wrote that bringing back the Fairness Doctrine was absolutely necessary to have the free press guaranteed by the Constitution..

28. Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56) (1996) The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued historic industry consolidation reducing the number of major media companies from around 50 (1983) to 6 (2005). It led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners. Example of corporate welfare spawned by political corruption - it gave incumbent broadcasters valuable licenses for broadcasting digital signals on the public airwaves. Lesson from this act: Deregulation before meaningful competition spells consumer disaster.

H. Free Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization

29. Free Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995), North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1994), Central American Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and other free trade agreements, have functioned principally to pry open markets for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of national and local economies - workers, farmers, indigenous peoples, women and other social groups - health and safety - the environment - and animal welfare. In addition, in the WTO system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, un-transparent and non-accountable and have operated to marginalize the majority of the world's people.

I. Health

30. FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA, P. L. 105-115, 21 U.S.C. 301) (1997) FDA relaxes rules of prescription drug advertising, eases restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs, allows manufacturers to disseminate journal articles describing the results of trials for unapproved uses of drugs and much more.

31. Portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 which provides billions of dollars to health insurance companies and increases the cost of health care.

J. Food Safety

32. The Food Safety Modernization Act, S. 510. An under handed way of suppressing the small farm/sustainable food movement. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6186094/senate_bill_s510the_food_safety_modernization.html

K. War Funding

33. The Defense Authorization Act for 2010 which wrongfully and unlawfully authorizes $725 billion in defense programs, including $158.7 billion for overseas combat and billions for nuclear weapons.

Laws Regarding Void Statutes, Regulations, Rulings and Orders

All parts of a statute, regulation, court judgment, decree or order, and civil and military orders and instructions which are unconstitutional, violate constitutional rights, were obtained by fraud, used or intended to be used to commit fraud are null and void and should be set aside and/or repealed.

Null and void portions of a order, judgment or statue are null and void whether or not a judge has found it to be null and void, the order, is appealed and/or a complaint is filed.

1.“A void judgment [is one]:

     a. which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally.

     b. which, also, from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.

     c. that has merely semblance without some essential elements, as want of jurisdiction or failure to serve process or Party in court. See also Voidable judgment. .

     d. “When a judgment is absolutely void, no rights are divested or obtained from that judgment”.

     e. “Judgments that are void may be attacked in any court at any time, directly or collaterally.”

           DEFINITIONS

                 Null: Nonexistent; void; of No legal meaning

Null and void: That which binds No One; that which is incapable of giving rise to any rights or obligations under any circumstances; that which is of no effect.

2. “Under settled legal principles, a judgment is void ab initio [from the beginning] if it has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties."

     a. Extrinsic fraud: The character of fraud which will afford a ground for setting aside a judgment that is, fraud which is collateral to the issues tried in the case wherein the judgment was rendered.

           i. For the purpose of grounds of equitable relief against a judgment, fraud which has prevented a party from having a trial, from presenting, all his case to the court or has so affected the manner in which the judgment was taken that there has not been a fair submission of the controversy to the court.

           ii. For the purpose of serving as a defense to an action on a foreign judgment, any fraudulent conduct of the successful party in the foreign action, practiced directly and affirmatively on the defeated parts out side the actual trial of the cases, whereby he was prevented from presenting his side of the cause fully and fairly.

           iii. Actual fraud characterized by an evil intent to take undue advantage of another person for the purpose of actually and knowingly defrauding him.

     b. Collateral fraud: Same as intrinsic fraud

     c. Intrinsic fraud. Intrinsic fraud includes:

           i. Fraud practiced in procuring a transaction.

           ii. In the trial of an action:—perjury, forgery, bribery of a witness, and other frauds which could have been relieved by the court in the action itself.

           iii. In reference to relief from a judgment: fraudulent acts pertaining to an issue involved in the original action, or fraudulent acts which were or could have been litigated in the original action.”

     d. Jurisdiction

           i. “It is essential to the validity of a judgment or decree, that the court rendering it shall have jurisdiction of both the subject matter and parties. But this is not all, for both of these essentials may exist and still the judgment or decree may be void, because the character of the judgment was not such as the court had the power to render, or because the mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt."

           ii. "We [public servants] have no more right to decline the jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.”

           iii. “Under settled legal principles, a judgment is void ab initio [from the beginning] if it has been ... entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties."

           iv. A court engaged in a statutory proceeding is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, there is no presumption that the judge holds jurisdiction. Should the judge engage in any act beyond that which the law or the statute grants him or her authority, the order of the court is void, of no legal force or effect anywhere and at any time.

           v. “Where the court, as here, is exercising special statutory powers, the measure of its authority is the statute itself; and a judgment or order in excess of the powers thereby conferred is null and void. In such a case, even though the court may have jurisdiction of the general subject matter and of the parties, an adjudication with reference thereto which is not within the powers granted to it is coram non judice."

     e. Fraud: An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." Black's 5th, 594

     f. “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."

     g. "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading ... We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be correct/ed immediately"

3. Void Statutes

     a."The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it."

     b. "It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution [it] is presumptively unconstitutional" and therefore null and void.

     c. "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed."